From time to time, something will happen on the Internet or in real life that I know I should write about for Man Boobz, but it’s so infuriating or depressing that I can’t bring myself to write about it. The recent bullshit on Reddit involving a young woman whose story of a sexual assault was met with angry disbelief until she provided video proof that her injuries were real is a perfect case in point.
Briefly, what happened is this:
A young woman posted about a sexual assault she’d endured a day or so earlier – a man had tried to rape her, pushing her to the ground and scraping her face on the pavement. In a separate topic she posted a picture of her injuries, most notably a giant scrape on her cheek. You can see it at right; click on the picture to see it full size.
Then another Redditor noticed that some time back, the same woman had posted a picture of herself in zombie makeup. This, he said, made him skeptical that her injuries were real — it was probably just a good makeup job.
That was all it took to send Reddit into a full internet lynch mob frenzy: obviously this woman was a liar and an attention whore and, even worse, possibly a feminist anti-rape activist! Redditors suddenly became both medical and makeup experts, and declared that the giant scrape on her face was obviously phony. (Not to me; I tried arguing with several of them to no avail.) It got ugly, very ugly, very quickly.
The woman at the heart of the storm asked if she needed to post an actual video of her cleaning the wound on her face to show that it was real; a redditor demanded that she do just that.
So she did. (Here it is.) Long story short: the scrape is real. The woman also posted a picture of the business card given to her by the police detective she’s spoken to when reporting the incident. It’s now pretty clear that there is no reason to doubt that her story is true. Even the Redditor who originally challenged her story realized that she was almost certainly telling the truth.
Here’s her post offering proof to back up her story.
At this point the lynch mob lost its steam; some people even apologized to her.
But the evidence of the ugliness remains in a host of different threads and different subforums on Reddit. I honestly don’t have the energy or the patience to sift through all of the ugliness; luckily, Jezebel has given a decent account of the whole spectacle; you can go there to get some more of the details.
You might also want to look in to the main thread where most of the ugliness occurred — though at this point many of the vile accusatory comments that got upvoted when everyone seemed to assume she was lying have been retroactively voted down. (The screenshot I posted above gives a better idea of what it looked like at the time; here’s another screenshot with some of the choicer comments.)
Naturally, Men’s Rightsers contributed to the ugliness – though most of the worst comments appeared outside of the Men’s Rights subreddit, and a surprising number of r/mr regulars refused to jump on the original “she’s a liar” bandwagon.
While many Men’s Rightsters are now apologetic, others still think she may be lying.
Here’s a good discussion of the whole thing in ShitRedditSays, and a followup.
NWO: Tell me sir knight, if you had a daughter in the days of old would you allow her husband to rape her with impunity?
If they were married I couldn’t stop him. More to the point, legally, no one else could either. I could murder him; and 41 years ago I’d have to depend on the good will of a jury to avoid being killed for it.
So the best I could do; if I believed her (and I don’t think you would. You’d say she was being an ungrateful bitch, teasing him by getting into her nightgown, and ought to do he Godly duty, so he could rape her to his heart’s content, and you’d encourage it), is try to convince her to leave.
Facts, such pesky things, as in the fact I don’t reflexively defend women (as I showed you, when I said a woman ought to be arrested, and put in jail, for being criminally reckless with a firearm). The problem is, the things you think women are “guilty” of, aren’t things I think are wrong.
Fact: I think that women who rape teenaged boys, ought to go to jail.
Fact: I think women who make false accusations of rape (i.e. they know no rape occurred, and they make an accusation that someone specific committed it) ought to be charged with falsely accusing someone, or perjury, or a filing a false report (the last doesn’t require anyone be charged, just that it can be proven; to a jury, not to the Court of NWO, that someone knowingly filed a false criminal complaint about something).
What chaps your hide is you don’t believe any of that. You think women are evil. You accuse them of “waving their femininity” as if they were dangling raw meat in front of ravening beasts.
You say that any accusation they make equivalent to conviction; it ruins a man’s life.
You lie about what the laws are, and about what people say.
What really gets your goat… I tell you that you lie, and I tell other people that you lie.
And, because you lie, they believe me.
That’s what you really hate… People here speak the truth about you, and other people see it.
Sucks to be you.
@Pecunium
But sir knight, the stats you give mean nothing as you surely in all you genius must know. An exerpt from the stats you gave… “By 1900 there were more three-person families, and by 1930 more two-person families than any other size.”
If in 1900 there were 40% 3 person homes, 30% 2 person homes and 30% 1 person home, and in 1930 there were 40% 2 person homes, 30% 3 person homes amd 30% 4 person homes, the population growth would’ve been higher in 1930 as oppossed to 1900, even though there were “more” 2 person homes in 1930 than anything else. Very misleading.
—————————-
Also you give this as more evidence…”“The size of a child’s family of orientation has been suggested to be a negative influence on his or her survivorship, intelligence, phsysical growth, access to higher education, and, during the adult years, income and occupational achievement.”
This statement is a direct contradiction of the present state of things. In fact it is exactly opposite of the current trend. More is spent than ever on health yet ailments are rising, intelligence certainly is lower as is physical growth and higher education is failing. If you take away immigration in the US we’re in a period of negative population growth, which according to the above statement we should be experiencing a period of unprecedented wealth, wisdom, health and prosperity. I’m not sure how often you get out, but I assure you, my job takes me all over the country and the exact opposite is the rule. How do you explain this?
——————————
“This was published prior to the “40 year period of feminism” NWO blames for all the ills of the world”
I believe seneca falls was in 1848 which was 94 years prior. Unless you’re simply using a certain wave of feminism as your marker for judging when it began.
No, not at all. Hilarious, though how you sent him scrambling for the dictionary, which he should have done before opening his mouth and removing all doubt (as if there ever was any doubt).
@Pecunium
“If they were married I couldn’t stop him.”
Sir Knight. No one would allow this sort of thing. Those were the days of icky Christian morals being the norm. Rape was unheard of, a rare occurance. Feminism has swept away the old morals as archaic, and has given the State the role of moral authority.
————————-
“and ought to do he Godly duty, so he could rape her to his heart’s content”
Ahhh, perhaps this is where our point of contention is. I’d thought Christianity was good, where you feminists believe Godly duty means rape with impunity.
————————–
“I think women who make false accusations of rape (i.e. they know no rape occurred, and they make an accusation that someone specific committed it) ought to be charged with falsely accusing someone,”
Should they recieve the same punishment as the sentence that would have been imposed on the falsely accused man?
————————-
“What chaps your hide is you don’t believe any of that. You think women are evil.”
No, I believe men and women each have there own different flaws. You fail to call women out on their flaws, I don’t.
—————————
“What really gets your goat… I tell you that you lie, and I tell other people that you lie.”
To say men and women are equal before the law, is a lie. You can’t acknowlege that fact. If the law was equal, there’d be no MRM.
Are men judged more harshly for the same crime? Yes.
Do men have any reproductive rights? No.
Does the State mandate quota’s in education, employment? Yes.
Does the State favor women in divorce? Yes.
These are just a few points. Don’t tell me about lies, feminism was borne on lies. Tell me more about 1 in 4 women raped in college. Fuckin lies, and you stick up for them.
Again NWO, MRA types have been whining women have more privilege before the law for centuries.
Until, and unless, the entire female gender disappears, you will have MRAs complaining women are benefiting more then they are.
@PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
Simple question. Does the law favor women? Show me your feminist honesty.
owlslave men do have reproductive rights. you can buy all the contraception you want and nobody can stop you. women have more situations in which to exercise reproductive rights, but thats a different thing.
what puzzles me is that this is a problem for you, because as far as i can tell your a priggish moralist who wants to take away reproductive rights, not grant them.
@Sharculese
Men have no right to reproduce under current law, this is a fact. Your contraceptive arguement kinda falls flat when I already don’t have the right to reproduce. Somehow, I don’t think a condom is gunna work on actually reproducing.
Good, NWO, I got you to crack a book. Keep reading, here’s a biscuit.
@Sharculese
“what puzzles me is that this is a problem for you, because as far as i can tell your a priggish moralist who wants to take away reproductive rights, not grant them.”
Actually, it’s a State given right to murder with a clear concience. That’d be the State being given moral authority. Make no mistakes about it, the product of a successful abortion is a dead person. Another feminist lie, calling it a “reproductive” right.
NWO, nobody is entitled to reproduce without finding someone who wants to reproduce with him or her. A woman has to find a man to provide sperm to get pregnant. A man has to find a woman to impregnate. Another way is a woman could buy sperm and a man could pay a surrogate to have his baby. People can also adopt. If you want a child, you make it happen rather than having a pity party that nobody is putting a baby in a basket on your doorstep.
@hellkell
“Good, NWO, I got you to crack a book. Keep reading, here’s a biscuit.”
Would that be the big book of larnin’?
Men have no right to reproduce under current law, this is a fact. Your contraceptive arguement kinda falls flat when I already don’t have the right to reproduce. Somehow, I don’t think a condom is gunna work on actually reproducing.
thats not what ‘reproductive rights’ means, but just for the hell of it. uh… dudes do have the right to reproduce. you know it takes a lady and a man to make a baby right?
i mean, we can pass a law saying men have the right to get pregnant, but… its not really going to help. junior was just a movie.
NWO, do you consider miscarriages murder? Because spontaneous abortions happen quite often. Gonna rail at biology some more?
No, NWO that would be the dictionary or whatever means you used to look up impunity.
Actually, it’s a State given right to murder with a clear concience. That’d be the State being given moral authority. Make no mistakes about it, the product of a successful abortion is a dead person. Another feminist lie, calling it a “reproductive” right.
ohhhh, this is about you not being able to bully women into bearing your children?
sorry, abortion isnt murder. it is absolutely the governments prerogative to define what crimes are, and that includes murder. if you dont like it, youre kind of stuck, thats kind of what governments do. pouting is an option i get, is as raging on the internet.
you can rage and rage about how your made-up definition of murder includes abortion all day long, but it will still be your made up definition. thems the breaks, kid.
Why are we beating around this bush?
He thinks men should be able to force women to accept their sperm, and carry the child to term. That’s what he defines as ‘reproductive rights for men’.
@thebionicmommy
As long as abortion exists as a “right” only women have the right to reproduce. After conception a woman can kill a mans unborn child. That equals men not having the right to reproduce. Any women can kill any mans child. period. There is nothing a man can do, short of locking her up to stop this. He would of course go to jail for this. He would then be branded a kidnapper and be forbidden contact with the very childs life he saved. Further if he was let out he would be forced to pay child support for a child he is forbidden to see. Feminist equality is a lie.
No one has the right to reproduce unless they are physically capable of conceiving, carrying and delivering a child. There are women who cannot reproduce and there are no laws that will grant them right.
Feminism is not preventing you from reproduction. You are and always have been the only obstacle. You hate women, NWO. Why should any of us gestate your child?
Right, Slavey continues to prove his is an ignorant fake engineer who still fails to actually comprehend math.
“This statement is a direct contradiction of the present state of things. In fact it is exactly opposite of the current trend. More is spent than ever on health yet ailments are rising, intelligence certainly is lower as is physical growth and higher education is failing. If you take away immigration in the US we’re in a period of negative population growth, which according to the above statement we should be experiencing a period of unprecedented wealth, wisdom, health and prosperity. I’m not sure how often you get out, but I assure you, my job takes me all over the country and the exact opposite is the rule. How do you explain this?”
We are not in a negative population growth when removing immigration as a factor. We are still going to see population growth even when controlling for immigration inflows and outflows into the united states. Pew estimates that the majority of our growth will shift with immigration and their descendents over the next 40 years, making up about 82% of the growth. Pro-tip though, that remaining 18% is still internal growth. Looking at growth via native born citizens still indicates a strong growth period. This is when controlling for both inflow (birth of new US citizens) and outflow (longer time of death for US citizens). The census itself estimates that ignoring incoming immigration, there will still be growth. So, no, the US is in no way currently facing negative population growth, though US population growth is currently accelerated by immigration.
Pro-tip: Reduction in growth is not negative population growth. It’s a reduction in the rate of growth.
So, when I say you are at best misinformed, and at worst, a lying sack of shit, I’m pretty accurate here. I can point out that you are a fake engineer who doesn’t actually travel around the country for whatever “imagined” job you wish to talk about. Why? Because it has no bearing on the actual evidence of population growth within the country. Whatever your fake “job” is that has you “travel” holds no validity over actual data. In fact, I hold all of your “experiences” in contention because you are a known liar. You can not create reason when your personal validity is at zero. Especially for a subject that isn’t even related to your obviously fake job. I also doubt you will validate any truth claims for whatever it is you do to function within a liberalist economy. Why do you bring them up? They don’t hold purpose other then to assert your false sense of authority.
http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/85.pdf
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/immigration.html
http://www.npg.org/popfacts.htm
Now if you want to look at having children compared to economic success. Go look at some class based statistics and a few other intersections of demographics.
In fact, for a simple article to read, go here. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/03/081103fa_fact_talbot
Why are we beating around this bush?
its funnier this way. its not like were gonna get owlslave to view women as anything but chattel, anyway.
What law? Or actually, properly, which law?
@Sharculese
So tell me. At one time abortion wasn’t legal. How is it that now it is? Did murder suddenly become not murder, by law? So I guess when under the law it was considered murder, you’d be screaming how it’s murder? I mean, since it was law.
historically, abortion was never considered murder under the law. in jurisidictions where abortion was illegal it was criminalized under a separate code section.
the traditional definition of murder is ‘the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought’ with ‘human being’ defined as post-birh. again, termination of a fetus was not murder. it may have been criminal but not murder.
its true that post roe, some jurisdictions have amended their definition of murder to include termination of a fetus, but this is a novel development, and only reinforces that it is the right of the state to define murder, not just some angry dude on the internet.
so again, abortion-as-murder is a made up definition. too bad. so sad. next question.
Negative Population Growth would probably be a good thing for the planet, so long as it was primarily driven by voluntarily birth rates. The simple fact of the matter is that the current population isn’t sustainable. New technology may help, but everything has limits, and we can only add so much.
I mean, yeah, it’s bad for the USA’s continued dominance, but why do I care, in the face of energy crises? What’s bad for the world is bad for us too.